#jacobin

[herpsandbirds]

White-necked Jacobin (Florisuga mellivora), male, family Trochilidae, order Apodiformes, Mindo, Ecuador

photograph by Yi Feng

[misscalming]

Movie Saint-Just invented evil gay office coworker

[amateurvoltaire]

Saint-Just Hyping up Robespierre's Speech

Saint-Just, ordinarily rather reserved at the Jacobin Club, made an exception on January 1, 1793. Despite presiding over the session, he didn't share personal views or push his own agenda. Instead, he invited his colleagues to fund the printing and nationwide distribution of Robespierre's second speech on Louis XVI's trial (delivered on December 28, 1792)

His address was probably delivered in a a rather matter-of-fact and perfunctory tone. That being said, in my head, he's going full movie villain on the jacobins, urging them to open their purses or face the "dire consequences from the Archangel of Terror! Mwahahaha!”

(Translation under the cut)

Translation:

Citizens, you are well aware that, to dispel the errors with which Roland has enveloped the entire Republic, the Society has resolved to print and distribute Robespierre's speech. We have regarded it as an eternal lesson for the French people (1), as a sure way to unmask the Brissotin faction and to open the eyes of the French to the virtues of the minority seated on the Mountain that have been too long unknown. I remind you that a subscription office is open at the secretariat. It is enough for me to indicate this to stimulate your patriotic zeal, and, by emulating the patriots who have each contributed fifty ecus (2) to print Robespierre's excellent speech, you will have well earned the gratitude of the nation.

Notes

(1) The gushing is adorable

(2) In today's terms, fifty ecus translates to approximately 1900 euros. This was no small amount, particularly in light of the country's economic climate at the time.

Source:

Saint-Just, Louis Antoine Léon de. Œuvres. Paris: Gallimard, 2014

[nikosdaydreams]

What is the Jacobin Club's favourite math topic?

Surds. They're just so radical!

[nesiacha]

Napoleon and the Babouvists

I have chosen to translate Victor Daline’s 1970 article “Napoleon and the Babouvists”, which examines the relationship between Bonaparte and the Babouvist movement, as well as the repression they faced under his regime. Although the article dates back to 1970 and therefore lacks access to some more recent research or updated sources, it remains highly relevant and insightful.

That being said, the article notably overlooks the role of politically active women who were connected to Babeuf and who suffered repression under Bonaparte. These include Simone Evrard, Albertine Marat, and Marie-Anne Babeuf—the widow of Gracchus Babeuf—along with Madame Dufour, who lost her husband following his arrest under Bonaparte ( plus she was Jacobin woman who publicly opposed Bonaparte). Once again, women’s political agency during the Revolution is marginalized.

Furthermore, it is important to remember that repression under the Consulate was not limited to Babouvists. It also targeted liberal revolutionaries who opposed Babeuf’s ideas and were supporters of the Constitution of Year III. One such figure was Bernard Metge, an opponent of both Sieyès and the Consulate. Others were prosecuted simply for what historian Natalie Petiteau refers to as “insults and threats against the government.” There is no mention of the Dagger Plot in which the neo-Jacobin Topino Lebrun, friend of Babeuf, was executed among the "conspirators."

In addition, the article makes no mention of the well-known republican revolutionary Antonelle, a Babouvist who opposed Bonaparte and was quite possibly a member of the Philadelphes society.

Just so there’s no confusion: in his correspondence with Émile Babeuf, Buonarroti responds to someone who, by 1816, had already converted to Bonapartism. Later in life, Émile even adopted some rather reactionary positions—a surprising turn, considering that his father Gracchus Babeuf strongly disliked Bonaparte, that his mother Marie-Anne was persecuted at least twice under Napoleon, and that Émile himself was the subject of an arrest warrant during the first Malet conspiracy. since he frequented Buonarrotti, Antonelle and other opponents. He avoided arrest only because he was abroad at the time he was to be arrested.

Here is the article translated into English

The rise of Bonaparte began during Babeuf's lifetime. Did he notice it? Did he mention Bonaparte's name? Did Bonaparte attribute any importance to the Conspiracy for Equality? Did he consider it even the slightest serious threat? Ultimately, the trial at Vendôme dealt a painful blow to the Babouvist movement, yet it continued to exist nonetheless. What was the attitude toward Napoleon among the Babouvists who survived? In the vast literature dedicated to Napoleon, we find only a few scattered mentions regarding these questions, and no dedicated study is known to us. This is what determines the focus of our inquiry: what were the relations between the "last Gracchus" of the French Revolution and Napoleon?

The men of the Revolution were well-versed in the lessons of Roman history. They were also not unaware of the English Revolution, particularly the experience of General Monk. From the earliest days of the Revolution, many among them foresaw the threat of a "military government." “All revolutions end with the sword,” said the counter-revolutionary Rivarol, who was as clever as he was cynical. The fear of a general becoming “the hope and idol of the nation” was one of the main arguments used to oppose the war in 1791–1792—not only by Maximilien Robespierre, but also by the humble feudal law clerk from the small Picardy town of Roye, as early as 1790. In the draft statutes for the National Guard, the “citizen-soldier,” as Babeuf called himself, defended the principles of the most rigorous form of democracy. Commanders should be elected. To “preserve and secure the sweet fraternity, the only guarantee of liberty” between soldiers and officers, there should be no external distinctions. Uniforms and weapons were to be the same. All of these restrictions were dictated by the fear that otherwise “the colonel of our guard would behave like a sovereign.” Instead of “a detachment of free soldiers,” it would become “a herd of slaves.” ( 1) At the time, in Roye, the concern was only about “colonels.” But by the autumn of 1792, when France was at war, Babeuf clearly emphasized the threat a “military government” posed to the future of democracy. In his speech to the electoral assembly of the Somme department, he insisted that an article be added to the constitution stipulating that “a sufficient number of generals shall alternate monthly in the supreme command of the armies.” The first draft of his manuscript demanded that the supreme command “not remain in one person’s hands for more than two months.”(2)

During the insurrection of 13 Vendémiaire, Bonaparte and Babeuf (who was at the time imprisoned at Plessis) found themselves, it is true, on the same republican side. But the early signs of the rise of the “Vendémiaire general” already caused Babeuf deep concern. In theTribun du Peupleaddress to the army, published in issue 41 of his journal, he mentioned Bonaparte’s name for the first time and openly voiced his suspicions: “...Isn’t it foolish to believe that the Revolution was made for us? All right then, for our leaders. Should we not have felt flattered to see the Directory grant our General Buonaparte 800,000 francs to set up his household?” Babeuf contrasted Jourdan with Bonaparte: “It is said that the same tactics were tried on Jourdan... But it is claimed that Jourdan, being little impressed by such flattery, remains the general of Liberty and continues to deserve the trust of the People and the soldiers.”(3)

Babeuf voiced his suspicions regarding “Buonaparte” one month before his final arrest. Yet it is remarkable that even from his prison cell in Vendôme, Babeuf continued to follow Bonaparte’s actions. Upon reading the Ami des lois by Duchosal, dated 16 Pluviôse Year V (February 4, 1797), he made the following note: “Buonaparte, conqueror of Lombardy, believed this title authorized him to dictate the organization of the government of that country. He requested a list of good citizens from all classes to form a provisional general council representing the Milanese people, pending their self-constitution. There is no doubt,” the journalist adds, “that he will unite with the Cispadan peoples and form with them a one and indivisible republic.” (4) The hostile tone of this note is unmistakable. The guillotine’s blade already hung over Babeuf’s head. He had only three and a half months left to live, but he still had time to observe the transformation of the “conqueror of Lombardy” into an absolute sovereign—exactly what had frightened him as early as 1792. Babeuf had a clear vision of the danger of a “military government,” and he had time to observe how victorious generals most clearly embodied that threat.

A year later, another Babouvist, Sylvain Maréchal, spelled out that danger in very concrete terms. His actions during the final phase of the Babeuf movement remain unclear. However, his anti-Bonapartist pamphlet, Corrective to Bonaparte’s Glory or Letter to that General, written in Frimaire Year VI (between Campo Formio and the Egyptian campaign), when Bonaparte's republican reputation was still beyond doubt, does credit to Maréchal’s political insight(5). In it, Maréchal criticized Bonaparte’s Italian policy, the compromise with Austria regarding Venice, and his refusal to go to Rome. Above all, however, Maréchal feared the general’s ambition: “Bonaparte! Your glory is a dictatorship... If you allow yourself this tone in Italy when addressing the Cisalpine Directory, I don’t see what would prevent you from using the same tone one day when addressing the French Directory. I see nothing to reassure me that next Germinal, during our primary assemblies, you won’t say from your chambers in the Luxembourg Palace: People of France! I shall appoint you a Legislative Body and an Executive Directory. I see nothing to stop the general who toasts His Majesty the Emperor before toasting the French Republic from saying at the National Palace: I shall give you a king of my own choosing—or tremble. Your disobedience shall be punished.” It is true that Maréchal ended his pamphlet by softening his criticism, expressing hope that Bonaparte would contribute to the creation of a European republic led by France. But even in Frimaire Year VI, Maréchal predicted 18 Brumaire with considerable accuracy.

We will not dwell here on Marc Antoine Jullien’s attitude toward Bonaparte. Although closely associated with Babeuf in 1795, Jullien broke with the Babouvist movement well before the arrests in Floréal. At the time of his arrival in Italy, Jullien could be considered among the “conscientious Bonapartists,” although his criticism of Bonaparte’s Italian policy—serious and sharp—was quite close to the judgment expressed by Buonarroti. (6)

It is precisely to Buonarroti, one of the leaders of the “movement for equality,” and at the same time the man who knew Bonaparte closely and well from their time in Corsica, and later up to 1795 during preparations for the Italian campaign(7), that we owe the most accurate and clearest characterization of the Babouvists' attitude toward Bonaparte. Buonarroti wrote in Conspiracy for Equality: “…Through several such instances, the new aristocracy came to recognize in this general… the man who could one day offer it solid support against the people; and it was the knowledge of his haughty character and aristocratic views that led to his being summoned on 18 Brumaire, Year VIII, alarmed by the speed with which the democratic spirit was then resurfacing. Bonaparte was brought to supreme power by a sort of backward step that the 9th Thermidor, Year II, had imprinted on the Revolution… Bonaparte, by the firmness of his character and the influence of his military exploits, could have been the restorer of French liberty; an ordinary ambitious man, he preferred to strike the final blows against it: he held the happiness of Europe in his hands and became its scourge through the systematic oppression he imposed upon it.”(8)

This “diffidenza verso Bonaparte” (mistrust of Bonaparte) took root in Buonarroti well before 1795 and lasted until the end of his life (except for the Hundred Days). “Do not speak to me of the great man; he dealt the Revolution its death blow and completed to his benefit the work of iniquity that immorality and aristocracy had long since begun. He could have repaired everything; he lost everything. That is his great crime,” Buonarroti wrote to Babeuf’s son in 1828(9).

Buonarroti shared his memories of Napoleon with the Turgenev brothers, Alexander and Nikolai, in 1836, shortly before his death. These appeared in the first issue of Pushkin’s Sovremennik (“The Contemporary”): “February 16. The old man Buonarroti… had lunch at our house. He is a living chronicle of the last half-century… He characterizes many people wonderfully and tells little-known details about events and individuals. In his youth and later he knew Napoleon: in Corsica, he lived in his mother’s house and, when Napoleon came to visit her, the last night that Sub-Lieutenant Bonaparte spent in his family home, they slept in the same bed. Ever since, they quarreled at times but never reconciled. Bonaparte rose to the throne. Buonarroti, for his part, was thrown into prison.” (10)

“Never reconciled” – this phrase precisely defines not only Buonarroti’s attitude toward Napoleon but that of all the Babouvists.

On the 9th of Ventôse, Year IV, Bonaparte, as Commander-in-Chief of the Army of the Interior, personally closed the Panthéon Club. Buonarroti attributed to him not only the execution but also the initiative of this action. Three days later, on the 12th of Ventôse, Bonaparte was appointed commander of the Army of Italy. The Babouvists considered these two acts intimately connected.

At Saint Helena, Napoleon recalled these events and his encounter with Buonarroti at the time: “…After Vendémiaire, he was among the Babouvists. I had him summoned. He responded proudly. ‘That’s fine,’ I said, ‘but you have professed communist views to have the commander of Paris executed—this does not suit me, and I will have you tried by a military commission and shot.’”

Napoleon recalled this meeting with Buonarroti on January 5, 1819 (11). Whether he truly threatened Buonarroti with a military commission in 1795 is difficult to say, especially since negotiations for the “Italian mission” had occurred beforehand, evidently with Napoleon’s knowledge. But Bonaparte did indeed threaten the Babouvists with military commissions and execution during the famous State Council sessions of Nivôse, Year IX, after the explosion of the so-called “infernal machine.”

As is known, two days after the explosion, during the session on 5 Nivôse (December 26, 1800), Bonaparte—who was clearly preparing to purge the revolutionary cadres—categorically affirmed the terrorists' guilt. “These are the Septemberists, the remnants of all the men of blood... This is not a royalist conspiracy nor an English plot—it is a terrorist conspiracy.”(12)

The time had come to “cleanse France”: “I am ready to serve as a tribunal on my own, to have the guilty appear before me, interrogate them, judge them, and execute their sentence…” In that same speech, he declared: “There will be no avoiding blood. We must shoot… fifteen to twenty people, expel two hundred, and take advantage of this occasion to cleanse France.”

According to Roederer and Thibaudeau, this scene stunned the Council of State, which—according to Thiers—was “frozen in surprise and fear.”(13) A heavy silence followed, broken only by Admiral Truguet. The Brumairians were willing to judge the perpetrators of the attack severely, but the prospect of summary justice for a whole group of active revolutionaries alarmed them. Where would Bonapartist terror end?

Among those who took heed of this warning was even the most devoted of Bonapartists—Pierre-François Réal, former comrade of Chaumette and Hébert at the Paris Commune, defender of the Babouvists at Vendôme, and future count of the Empire.

Taken aback by such resistance, Bonaparte flew into a rage. According to Roederer, he turned pale, his voice broke, and he completely lost control of himself, even interrupting Cambacérès(14).

It is striking that when calling for extraordinary measures against terrorists, Bonaparte always recalled the Babouvists. In all versions of his speech that reached us, and in all accounts by those present, Babeuf is invariably mentioned: “The tribunal will conclude everything in five days. I have a dictionary of the Septemberists, the conspirators, Babeuf and others who played their part during the worst moments of the Revolution.”(15)

Transported by fury, Bonaparte threatened Council members: “Don’t you know, gentlemen of the Council, that except for two or three, you are all considered royalists?... Shall I send Citizen Portalis to Sinnamary, Citizen Devaisne to Madagascar, and then form a council à la Babeuf [emphasis ours]? Come now, Citizen Truguet, don’t try to fool me… They wouldn’t spare you either; and you could tell them you defended them today at the Council of State, but they would sacrifice you like me, like all your colleagues.”(16)

Enraged, Bonaparte suspended the session.

Meanwhile, it became clear that the terrorists had no part in the Rue Nicaise explosion. At the Council session of 11 Nivôse, Bonaparte no longer linked the attack to anti-terrorist measures. “The government has its convictions, but without proof it cannot impute the attack to these individuals. They are being deported for September 2, May 31, Babeuf’s conspiracy [emphasis ours], and all that has happened since.”(17)

At this session, Réal and others again raised objections to the list of people to be deported, drawn up by Fouché(18). Bonaparte held firm. The proscription list came into effect on 14 Nivôse.

This list of 130 names included well-known Babouvists like Rossignol and Massard, leaders of the Babouvist military organization; “agents” from the Paris districts: Mathurin Bouin, Claude Fiquet, Mennessier; individuals indicted in the Vendôme trial and others linked to the Babouvist movement: Convention member Choudieu, Félix Lepeletier, Marchand, Chrétien, Lamberthé, the Babouvist literature publisher Brochet, Cordas, Dufour, Vatar, Goulard, Paris, the Belgian Fyon, Vanneck, and many others.

Seventy people were deported to the Seychelles. Some remained on Anjouan Island in the Comoros, where, within two weeks, twenty-one of them—including Rossignol and Bouin—died of disease. According to survivor Lefranc, Fescourt, author of a book on the deportees’ fate, reports Rossignol’s final words: “I die overwhelmed by the most horrible pain; but I would die content if I could know that the oppressor of my homeland, the author of all my misfortunes, suffered the same torments and pains.”(19)

Hostilities with England prevented the deportation of the second group of terrorists. Only in 1803 were 40 people sent to Cayenne, where a third died in the first year. However, the police failed to arrest everyone sentenced to deportation. Claude Fiquet and Menessier, former administrators of the Paris Commune police, as well as Babouvists Didier, Marchand, Fyon and others escaped. Some managed to flee, including Fournier l’Américain, a close associate of Babeuf in Paris in 1793 (20).

The arrests of Floréal, the repression at Grenelle, the Vendôme trial, and finally the list of 14 Nivôse dealt heavy blows to the Babouvists. But did Napoleon completely suppress them? Was opposition to the Consulate and Empire limited to military and ideological circles? Who created the Philadelphes organization, and did it even exist? Was Buonarroti truly connected to it and involved in General Malet’s two plots? These questions demand further research.

Fifty years ago, a historian as capable as Léonce Pingaud could still consider the Philadelphes a fabrication by Charles Nodier, and General Malet a “loner” with occasional accomplices(21) . Regarding Malet, E.V. Tarlé held the same opinion. However, later studies confirmed the Philadelphes' existence. Destrem’s hypothesis—that during his deportation to Île de Ré, Félix Lepeletier became linked to Colonel Oudet, its commander, and became involved with the Philadelphes—is more than plausible (22). Lepeletier escaped in 1803.

Andryane’s testimony about Buonarroti’s links to General Malet(23) finds strong confirmation in Buonarroti’s Elenco dei grandi uomini, published by A. Saitta, where Oudet is praised as “founder of the Philadelphes society instituted against Bonaparte’s tyranny,” and Malet as “a passionate republican-democrat who, from the depths of prison, rose up against imperial despotism to restore the people to their rights.”(24)

Buonarroti was the living link connecting the movement of the Equals to the resistance against “imperial despotism.” Other evidence exists of Babouvist activity(25). Napoleon did not succeed in breaking this “Macedonian phalanx”—chief among them Buonarroti himself.

At Saint Helena, he paid tribute to his adversary. Let us recall these words, which J. Godechot was the first to highlight(26) . According to a note by Bertrand dated 1819: “Napoleon reads Le Moniteur. He reads the Babouvist trial and finds it interesting… Buonarroti was a man of great talent… He was a friend of the common good, a leveler. I had him released. I don’t believe Buonarroti ever thanked me, or ever addressed me. Perhaps it was pride on his part, perhaps he thought himself too insignificant. Maybe I forgot he wrote to me—I was so busy then! Buonarroti was a leveler so far from my system that it’s possible I paid no attention. Yet he could have been very useful in organizing the Kingdom of Italy. He would have made a very good professor. He was an extraordinarily talented man, a descendant of Michelangelo, an Italian poet like Ariosto, writing French better than I did, drawing like David, and playing the piano like Paisiello.”(27)

This judgment seems objective and impartial. What a pity Napoleon expressed it so late…

Victor Daline

(1) Archives IML, fonds 223, inv.I, number 134

(2) Archives IML, fonds 223, inv.I, number 333

(3) Le Tribun du Peuple, number 41, page 276, “Adresse du tribun du peuple à l’armée” 10 Germinal

(4) Archives IML, fonds 223, inv.I, number 473

(5) Cf. A. Mathiez, “An anti-Bonapartist pamphlet in Year VI. The predictions of Sylvain Maréchal”, La Révolution française, 1903, vol. XLIV, pages 249–255; M. Dommanget, Sylvain Maréchal (1950). The text of the pamphlet was reprinted in 1913 by O. Karmin in the Revue historique de la Révolution française.

(6) Cf. V. Daline, “M.A. Jullien after 9 Thermidor”, Annales Historiques de la Révolution Française, 1966, no.185

(7) J. Godechot, Les commissaires aux armées sous le Directoire (1941), vol. I; A. Saitta, Filippo Buonarroti (Rome, 1950–1951)

(8) F. Buonarroti, Conspiration pour l’égalité (Paris, 1957), vol. I

(9) Archives départementales de la Somme, F 129/106, “Brussels, 30 July 1828���. It is interesting to compare Buonarroti’s opinion to the attitude of Ch. Fourier toward Napoleon (cf. Rob. C. Bowles, “The reaction of Ch. Fourier to the French Revolution”, French Historical Studies, Vol. I, No. 3, 1960). “Fourier was particularly disappointed by Napoleon, for he acknowledged that this conqueror was a remarkable genius and held the key to universal harmony and happiness.”

(10) Sovremennik, 1836, vol. I, pp. 275–276, “Paris, A Russian’s Chronicle”. See also A.I. Turgenev, Chronique d’un Russe. Journaux (Moscow, 1964)

(11) General Bertrand, Cahiers de Sainte-Hélène, 1818–1819 (Paris, 1959), page 225

(12) P.L. Roederer, Œuvres (1854), vol. III, p. 355

(13) A. Thiers, Histoire du Consulat et de l’Empire (1845), vol. I, p. 255. Cf. Thibaudeau, A.C., Mémoires sur le Consulat par un ancien conseiller d’État (1827), ch. II “Explosion de la machine infernale”. Also Histoire de la France et de Napoléon Bonaparte, vol. II (1835), page 46

(14) Roederer, op. cit., p. 357

(15) Roederer, op. cit., p. 359

(16) Thiers, op. cit., p. 257

(17) Thibaudeau, Mémoires…, page 47. Cf. Thiers, op. cit., page 266

(18) Desmarets, in Témoignages historiques sur quinze ans de haute police (1833), pp. 48–49, probably based on Réal’s account, reproduced this scene: “Napoleon: Who made those lists? There are still enough of those incorrigible remnants of Babeuf’s anarchy in Paris. Réal: Precisely. I’d be on that list too… if I weren’t a Councillor of State — I who defended Babeuf and his co-defendants at Vendôme.”

(19) Fescourt, Histoire de la double conspiration de 1800: contre le gouvernement consulaire, et de la déportation qui eut lieu dans la deuxième année du consulat; contenant des détails authentiques et curieux sur la machine infernale et sur les déportés (1819). Chateaubriand in his Mémoires d’outre-tombe mentions this same phrase by Rossignol and Fescourt’s book

(20) Cf. J. Destrem, “Les déportations du Consulat”, Revue historique, May–June 1878

(21) L. Pingaud, La jeunesse de Ch. Nodier. Les Philadelphes (1919): “Oudet is the fictitious creation of a whimsical imagination” (page 179) “Malet… only ever had occasional accomplices; a solitary figure driven by his passions or personal grudges, and not acting on behalf of any known association” (pages 170–171)

(22) Destrem, op. cit., page 94

(23) Cf. Andryane, Souvenirs de Genève

(24) Cf. A. Saitta, op. cit., vol. II, page 45. See also A. Lehning, “Buonarroti and his internal secret societies”, International Review of Social History, 1956, no. 1

(25) Cf. J. Dautry, “Saint-Simon et les anciens babouvistes de 1804 à 1809”, Babeuf et Buonarroti. Pour le deuxième centenaire de leur naissance. Also by the same author: “La tradition babouviste après la mort de Babeuf”, Annuaire d’études françaises, 1960 (Moscow, 1961)

(26) Cf. A. H.R.F., 1952, pages 177–178: “Thus, Napoleon was more closely connected with Buonarroti before 1796 than Saitta and Galente Garrone believed”

(27) General Bertrand, Cahiers de Sainte-Hélène, 1818–1819 (1959), p. 297. Cf. ibidem, p. 255: “He finds Buonarroti’s name, admits he knew him, and says he should have used his knowledge. He was a clever man, a liberty fanatic, but sincere, a terrorist and yet a good and simple man. It seems he never changed character.” See also notes for 1816–1817: “Buonarroti… had known me in his youth. He was a talented, eloquent, honest man… He would have been very useful to me in Italy” (General Bertrand, Cahiers de Sainte-Hélène. Journal 1816–1817, pp. 177–178)

Here is the source for Victor Daline's original article in French:

[berniesrevolution]

CATALYST JOURNAL

As a lonely critic who dared to challenge Federal Reserve Board chairman Alan Greenspan during the stock market mania of the late 1990s, then congressman Bernie Sanders received recognition from the political left and dismissive coverage from the mainstream media. Sanders subsequently won significant national attention as an outspoken populist critic of the banking system in the wake of the 2007–8 financial crisis. After declaring his presidential candidacy in 2015, he cemented this reputation as the nation’s preeminent critic of bankers, using the campaign to express the anger that many Americans shared about the financial crisis and the resulting bailout. “If elected president,” Sanders pledged, “I will rein in Wall Street so they can’t crash our economy again.”1 Hillary Clinton conceded the appeal of this campaign promise when — panicked by the popularity of Sanders’s attack on finance and unable to respond effectively to his criticisms — she sought to change the subject by exclaiming, “If we broke up the big banks tomorrow . . . would that end racism? Would that end sexism? Would that end discrimination against the LGBT community?”2 The stand that Sanders took against the banks was compelling, true to the contemporary moment, and appeared novel. But although unfamiliar to the times, opposing the excesses and power of bankers was hardly original. Sanders emerged as the successor to an influential strand of American political culture with deep historical roots that has motivated far-reaching economic demands in the past and could do so again in the future.

As the Sanders campaign demonstrated, while banking is widely considered to be dry and dull, it’s nevertheless an issue that can energize working-class politics. Discussing and debating banking calls attention to opposing material interests, which promotes a politics that is attuned to questions of class. Workers confront the relevance of banking to their daily lives every time they check their account balance or pay a bill.3 When Sanders presented financial policy as a clash between Wall Street on the one hand and “working families” on the other, he articulated a class-based populist message that could reach a diverse spectrum of working-class voters. In the past few years, local single-issue groups promoting public banks made real headway in several heavily Democratic cities and states. Among other issues, their campaigns foregrounded green energy projects and unequal credit access due to racial discrimination. This messaging excites liberal Democratic politicians, but its capacity to forge broader coalitions and inspire the solidarity that sustains working-class politics is more limited.4

A look at the past reveals that banking programs that are framed in universal terms can offer an effective organizing device with widespread appeal. Shared commitments to remaking the banking system were the cornerstone of an influential American political tradition. In the late nineteenth century, the “money question” galvanized two mass political parties that protested Gilded Age inequality, the Greenback and Populist parties. In the early twentieth century, large numbers of workers and farmers across the nation rallied around banking reforms as a means to make American society more democratic. Seen in the light of this history, the promise of material benefits from government banking continues to present a source for working-class political mobilization today.

Recent polling indicates that the public is dissatisfied with the private banking system. In 2024, the Pew Research Center revealed that 60 percent of Americans think that banks have a negative effect on the nation. This discontent with the current banking system is bipartisan: Democrats and Republicans were equally likely to view banks as having a negative impact.5 Such an outlook conformed with the findings of earlier surveys. A 2016 poll by Edison Research found that a majority thought Wall Street — a term commonly used for large banks — did more to hurt than to help the lives of Americans, an opinion that prevailed across racial, gender, educational, and partisan lines, with one exception. The only group that bucked this pattern were those with postgraduate educations, though here, too, a plurality thought Wall Street did more harm than good.6 And these poll results aren’t a post–financial crisis phenomenon. When Louis Harris and Associates conducted polling on the subject in 1996, amid an economic boom, the firm’s chairman concluded that the public’s impression of Wall Street was “awful.” In the survey, 61 percent of Americans agreed that Wall Street was “dominated by greed and selfishness” and 64 percent agreed that “most people on Wall Street would be willing to break the law if they believed they could make a lot of money and get away with it.”7

Government banking could open up new economic possibilities. Absent the imperative to maximize profits, public banks from the local to the federal level could help advance social democratic policies. Operating under the mandate to promote social welfare, such banks could help finance universal government programs. Public infrastructure projects would be prime candidates for these loans. Importantly, government banking would bolster public control over capital flows. Increasing funding opportunities for social goods and government services would invigorate the public sector. Government banking could allow for greater public management of capital allocation among different economic sectors and make investment decisions more democratically responsive.

(Continue Reading)

[cowperviolet]

Reading stuff about English anti-Jacobin novels written in 1790-1800s!

Apparently quite a *number* of them set in actual France had Marat as the Gothic villain desiring the heroine of the piece (though at least in one novel as a proper wife, because Even Evil Has Standards).

Not to mention the number of fictional/expy Revolutionaries there who do the same. I am honestly starting to suspect that “and then the evil sinister powerful French revolutionary, real or fictional, burned with such desire for my heroine that he grew ready to commit judicial murder and push new laws through just to be with her” trope was a thing of fascination as much as condemnation.

Like… I’m sorry, just look at the excerpt below and tell me it’s not the same orchard where dark romance stuff grows:

Bonus:

@robesmoulins @18thcenturythirsttrap

@theorahsart

[leftistfeminista]

We know the rich are getting richer, but what exactly are they doing with all those riches? Sociologist Ashley Mears examined one site of elite consumption: the world of VIP clubs and its rituals of garish waste and exploitation of women.

[houseofbrat]

[mostlysignssomeportents]

Announcing the Picks and Shovels book tour

This week only, Barnes and Noble is offering 25% off pre-orders of my forthcoming novel Picks and Shovels.

My next novel, Picks and Shovels, is officially out in the US and Canada on Feb 17, and I'm about to leave on a 20+ city book-tour, which means there's a nonzero chance I'll be in a city near you between now and the end of the spring!

https://us.macmillan.com/books/9781250865908/picksandshovels

Picks and Shovels is a standalone novel starring Martin Hench – my hard-charging, two-fisted, high-tech forensic accountant – in his very first adventure, in the early 1980s. It's a story about the Weird PC era, when no one was really certain what shape PCs should be, who should make them, who should buy them, and what they're for. It features a commercial war between two very different PC companies.

The first one, Fidelity Computing, is a predatory multi-level marketing faith scam, run by a Mormon bishop, a Catholic priest, and an orthodox rabbi. Fidelity recruits people to exploit members of their faith communities by selling them third-rate PCs that are designed as rip-off lock-ins, forcing you to buy special floppies for their drives, special paper for their printers, and to use software that is incompatible with everything else in the world.

The second PC company is Computing Freedom, a rebel alliance of three former Fidelity Computing sales-managers: an orthodox woman who's been rejected by her family after coming out as queer; a Mormon woman who's rejected the Church over its opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment, and a nun who's quit her order to join the Liberation Theology movement in the struggle for human rights in America's dirty wars.

In the middle of it all is Martin Hench, coming of age in San Francisco during the PC bubble, going to Dead Kennedys shows, getting radicalized by ACT UP!, and falling in love – all while serving as CFO and consigliere to Computing Freedom, as a trade war turns into a shooting war, and they have to flee for their lives.

The book's had fantastic early reviews, with endorsements from computer historians like Steven Levy (Hackers), Claire Evans (Broad-Band), John Markoff (What the Doormouse Said) and Dan'l Lewin (CEO of the Computer History Museum). Stephen Fry raved that he "hugely enjoyed" the "note perfect," "superb" story.

And I'm about to leave on tour! I have nineteen confirmed dates, and two nearly confirmed dates, and there's more to come! I hope you'll consider joining me at one of these events. I've got a bunch of fantastic conversation partners joining me onstage and online, and the bookstores that are hosting me are some of my favorite indie booksellers in the world.

BOSTON (Feb 14): Boskone, 4PM, Westin Boston Seaport District

BOSTON (Feb 14): Brookline Booksmith with KEN LIU, 7PM, 279 Harvard Street, Brookline

VIRTUAL (Feb 15): YANIS VAROUFAKIS, sponsored by Jacobin and hosted by David Moscrop, 10AM Pacific, 1PM Eastern, 6PM UK, 7PM CET

MENLO PARK (Feb 17): Kepler’s Books with CHARLIE JANE ANDERS, 7PM, 1010 El Camino Real

LOS ANGELES (Feb 18): Diesel Bookstore with WIL WHEATON, 630PM, 225 26th Street, Santa Monica

SEATTLE (Feb 19): Third Place Books with DAN SAVAGE, 7PM, 17171 Bothell Way NW Lake Forest Park

TORONTO (Feb 23): Another Story, 630PM, 315 Roncesvalles Ave

NYC (Feb 26): The Strand with JOHN HODGMAN, 7PM, 828 Broadway

PENN STATE (Feb 27): Kern Auditorium, 7PM, 112 Kern Building

DOYLESTOWN (Mar 1): Doylestown Bookshop, 12PM, 16 S Main St

BALTIMORE (Mar 2): Red Emma’s, 2PM, 630PM, 3128 Greenmount Ave

DC (Mar 4): Cleveland Park Library with MATT STOLLER, 630PM, 3310 Connecticut Ave NW

RICHMOND (Mar 5): Fountain Bookstore with LEE VINSEL, 6PM, 1312 E Cary St

AUSTIN (Mar 10): First Light Books, 7PM, 4300 Speedway/43rd

BURBANK (Mar 13): Dark Delicacies, 6PM, 822 N. Hollywood Way

SAN DIEGO (Mar 24): Mysterious Galaxy, 7PM, 3555 Rosecrans

BELFAST (Mar 24) (remote): Imagine! Festival with ALAN MEBAN, 7PM UK

CHICAGO, Apr 2: Exile in Bookville with PETER SAGAL, 7PM, 410 S Michigan Ave, 2nd floor

BLOOMINGTON, Apr 4: Morgenstern Books, 6PM, 642 N Madison St

PDX, Jun 20 (TBC): Powell’s Books (date and time to be confirmed)

I'm also finalizing plans for one or two dates in NEW ZEALAND at the end of April, as well as a ATLANTA date, likely on March 26.

I really hope you'll come out and say hello. I know these are tough times. Hanging out with nice people who care about the same stuff as you is a genuine tonic.

If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:

https://pluralistic.net/2025/02/06/picks-and-shovels-tour/#19-cities-plus-plus

[herpsandbirds]

White-necked Jacobin (Florisuga mellivora), male, family Trochilidae, order Apodiformes, Ecuador

photograph by Yi Feng

[misscalming]

I am the only person who understands this. Any Aussies in the chat? ANY CARLTON FANS THATD BE INSANE.

Basically I’m turning the Jacobins into an Australian Football Club (AFL google it it’s our national sport only played here other than some small branches in the US and Ireland we also have a random oval in China that we used once before covid and abandoned it which is really funny, we made it the least popular teams second home ground lmfao) first we have Robespierre who doesn’t play but is the team manager. Cuz it made sense. Also being a Carlton fan made sense. I’d characterise Carlton fans as; Diverse, Hopeful, proud, critical, Paternal (a lot of the players fight so hard and r quite young so we get a lil’ protective of them) tired and depressed! (The team keeps giving us hope we’ll play well then lets us down/ over/ and over/ and over/ and over- It’s been 30yr’s since we’re won a premiership! 30 YEARS!!!!) I’m REALLY putting some thought into this lmao.

[bonebeautyart]

Hello, I'm here to ask for help. I have been looking for resources, essays, theses and almost everything that involves Saint Just's thought. But I have doubts about this book. I have read the first chapters and without lying quite far-fetched and it is based on "oh, I don't like Saint Just because it was mediocre, precocious, wild... (insert huge list of derogatory qualifiers)" but in reality it never explains well why it is all these qualifiers. Someone who has read this book and can explain to me well why this historian despises Saint Just so much and idolatrys Danton? Although the answer seems obvious, I need to understand if the works of this little rockstar are really too bad to be judged as "mediocre and lack of intelligence."

(The original title is in my native language, you can look for it in English version)

[enlitment]

I present a present 🎁 pray bless me with one of your random images!

Sorry for taking so long! You're getting a Phrygian cap (and a cool blade as a bonus) ✨

[officialjacobinpage24]

I hadn’t posted in a while!

Anyways, which flags are you guys feeling?

[nesiacha]

"If the influence that, I dare say, you have allowed Bonaparte to have over yourselves were seized by some of his successors, and if they became accustomed to this mania of superiority over the government, I ask you, would we have a republican constitution for long?" Xavier Audouin fears that, without a firm takeover by the Directory, "its powers [would be] destroyed by the growing ambition of the military."

Mémoire du citoyen Audouin sur les dilapidations,Milan, 5 nivôse an VII(December 25, 1798)